Bridging the accountability gap - Audit Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 Governing partnerships | The partnership landscape Figure 2 Telford and Wrekin Partnership The local partnership landscape is getting more complex. TELFORD AND WREKIN PARTNERSHIP: CURRENT (7/05) ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE T&W LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP (BOARD) RACE, EQUALITY & DIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP Connecting Communities Group T&W Voluntary & Community Forum AGENDA GROUP (LSP ‘Executive’) PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT UNIT (PDU) CO-ORDINATION GROUP (Networking Policy Areas) GO-WM/AWM SUB-PARTNERSHIPS (THEMATIC) Social Inclusion Partnership (inc. Health & CLSP) Safer & Stronger Communities Partnership Health & Care Strategic Partnership Children & Young Persons Strategic Partnership Lifelong Learning Partnership Strategic Housing Partnership Telford & Wrekin Sustainability Trust Telford First SRB Exec. Neighbourhood Co-ordination Group YOS Joint Commissioning Team/Children’s Trust Woodside Regeneration Partnership NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTION TEAMS (6) AREA/CLIENT-BASED PARTNERSHIPS Early Years Development & Childcare Partnership Children’s Fund Partnership Ironbridge Gorge WHS Strategy Group Transition To Adulthood Group Telford Economic Dev. Agency Telford Business Leaders Forum DISTRICT CENTRE PARTNERSHIPS (3) Key reporting channels Communication pathways Under-development/review Source: Telford and Wrekin Council, 2005 Do public bodies need to govern their partnerships 39 The many forms of partnership give rise to different legal and governance structures. Legislation stipulates the governing forms for some partnerships: the Charity Commission approves the trust deeds of registered charities and companies limited by guarantee have their memoranda and articles of association. The majority of partnerships – including LSPs – are unincorporated associations; they often adopt a constitution and a memorandum of understanding or terms of reference as a governing document. 40 Some practitioners argue that partnerships should not be excessively governed, to do so would jeopardise their principal aim of creating an environment in which innovation can flourish. The more governance controls tie them down, so the argument goes, the more
Governing partnerships | The partnership landscape 17 this innovation will suffer; partnerships should be allowed to take risks without the undue burdens that the checks and balances of governance bring. On the face of it, the argument is attractive, but it may not serve the public interest well. 41 Disputes arise and partnerships break down for various reasons. When this happens, there must be clear protocols for managing conflict. Without them, there cannot be sound internal accountability between partners and it may not be possible for the public to get redress for complaints. Chapters 3 and 5 discuss these issues in more detail. 42 Each partner organisation has its own governance and accountability structure, codes of conduct and risk management arrangements. The varying objectives, legal forms and membership found in partnerships makes it impossible to apply a one-size-fits-all model of partnership governance. In 2004, INLOGOV concluded that: ‘governance systems should be proportional to the responsibilities and risks of the partnership’ (Ref. 7). The ODPM recently reached similar conclusions following its action-learning research on LSP governance (Ref. 8). We agree with these views, but believe strongly that partners must reach agreement on how they will govern their collaboration. It is vital that there is clarity among partners about purpose, membership, roles and responsibilities, among other things. This agreement should be set out in formal agreements. The importance of partnership agreements 43 In an earlier report (Ref. 9), we expressed concern about the risks that stem from inadequate protocols governing partnerships: ‘…the absence of formal partnership arrangements both inhibits the achievement of the partnership’s objectives and increases the potential for a breakdown in governance arrangements and controls.’ That report summarised the main findings of our auditors’ work on the accounts of local authorities, NHS bodies and probation boards. We found that a substantial minority of public bodies have experienced problems with partnerships (Figure 3).
Page 1 and 2: Public sector National report Octob
Page 3 and 4: Governing partnerships | Contents 1
Page 5 and 6: Governing partnerships | Summary 3
Page 7 and 8: Governing partnerships | Recommenda
Page 9 and 10: Governing partnerships | Introducti
Page 15 and 16: 1 The partnership landscape Why do
Page 17: Governing partnerships | The partne
Page 21 and 22: Governing partnerships | The partne
Page 27 and 28: Governing partnerships | Partnershi
Page 35 and 36: Governing partnerships | Governing
Page 55 and 56: 4 Public accountability in partners
Page 57 and 58: Governing partnerships | Public acc
Page 63 and 64: Governing partnerships | Improving
Page 69 and 70:
Governing partnerships | Improving
Page 71 and 72:
Governing partnerships | Improving
Page 73 and 74:
Governing partnerships | Appendix 1
Page 75 and 76:
Governing partnerships | Appendix 2
Page 77 and 78:
Appendix 3: References 1 Sullivan a
Page 80:
To order further copies of this rep
show all

Bridging the accountability gap - Audit Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?